minutes

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't think I would go that far.

If you had gone a little farther you would have seen that I was being just the tiniest bit facetious.

But not very.

[Gary Novosielski]

The can, however, if the minute requirements are a rule of order, as you've claimed, the assembly can do something less. The assembly could, by majority vote, order only how certain members voted be recorded in the minutes, but that is up to the majority. That rule limits anything greater, but not something lesser, as per p. 572, #6. Clearly, only recording the vote of one member in the minutes is something "less than the limitation" of recording how all members voted.

By this logic, the majority, since it has the right to include true statements in the minutes, can vote to fill the minutes with half-truths.

If it has the authority to include full sentences, then it can include partial sentences, omitting, say, the word "not" every third time it appears.

Since it can enforce the rules of decorum, it can choose to enforce these rules only on some members but not others, by a majority vote.

Since it can order the Previous Question for all members, it can also order it for only those members who are opposed to the pending question.

Right?

No. Of course not.

There already is a parliamentary rule allowing the assembly to use a roll-call vote if it is desired for the results to be recorded. It is available by majority vote. If they don't want the vote to be recorded, they can use another form of voting. But the effect of the decision must fall equally on all members. Decide on the method of voting, and record it in the minutes according to the rule for that method of voting. The choice is, include the votes of all members, or do not include the votes of any.

That's the rule as it stands. Suspending it should require a 2/3 vote. Without suspending the rule, noting the vote of a single member should out of order. Noting the reasons for votes of any member is equally so.

A majority vote (in fact, typically less than that) is enough to require a roll-call or not to. I agree that it should not be sufficient to afford extraordinary treatment to one member's vote.

[J. J.]

By this logic, the majority, since it has the right to include true statements in the minutes, can vote to fill the minutes with half-truths.

If it has the authority to include full sentences, then it can include partial sentences, omitting, say, the word "not" every third time it appears.

Since it can enforce the rules of decorum, it can choose to enforce these rules only on some members but not others, by a majority vote.

Since it can order the Previous Question for all members, it can also order it for only those members who are opposed to the pending question.

Right?

No. Of course not.

The assembly can certainly choose different punishment for members violating the same rules of decorum. There is no rule in RONR that prevents the assembly from being capricious.

There already is a parliamentary rule allowing the assembly to use a roll-call vote if it is desired for the results to be recorded. It is available by majority vote. If they don't want the vote to be recorded, they can use another form of voting. But the effect of the decision must fall equally on all members. Decide on the method of voting, and record it in the minutes according to the rule for that method of voting. The choice is, include the votes of all members, or do not include the votes of any.

That's the rule as it stands. Suspending it should require a 2/3 vote. Without suspending the rule, noting the vote of a single member should out of order. Noting the reasons for votes of any member is equally so.

The rule, by majority vote, permits the inclusion of how every member voted. The majority can do something less, permit less than how every member voted. That would be covered by p. 572 #6: "A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater that what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are evidently not improper."

A majority vote (in fact, typically less than that) is enough to require a roll-call or not to. I agree that it should not be sufficient to afford extraordinary treatment to one member's vote.

Under RONR it is a majority vote. It is not the treatment of one member' votes but how the majority chooses to treat the recording of that vote. Certainly, under RONR, the member has no right to insert it in the minutes. The majority does.

[paulmcclintock]

RONR p. 453 says "The name of the seconder of a motion should not be entered in the minutes unless ordered by the assembly." Thus it seems to me that in general something that "should not be entered in the minutes" can be "ordered by the assembly" to be entered. I assume that if it took a two-thirds vote it would have said so.

A single member couldn't cause extras to be entered in the minutes, such as how they voted on a rising vote, but something required by rule (such as the counts for a ballot vote) could be demanded by a single member and suppressed by a two-thirds vote suspending the rules (similar to a call for orders of the day). If the majority adopting the minutes or approving a correction or amendment want something extra in the minutes, it is their choice.

Example: I chair a board that once had a member on it that was an employee of the local power company, and when we voted on items such as an easement for the power company he would abstain by choice, and ask that the minutes reflect that fact. Our state law says that if a director is present, he is "presumed to have assented to the action" unless his "dissent or abstention shall be entered in the minutes" or he delivers his dissent/abstention to the secretary immediately after the meeting.

In the real world, for which RONR was written, there are times when recording how a person votes is important. If a board member is sued because he was "presumed" to have approved something, or voted off the board, or somehow "punished" by his boss, it would be well to have it documented in the minutes how he voted against it or abstained.

Recall that with RONR 10th edition, a motion isn't out of order simply for proposing something illegal in general, it is only out of order if it conflicts with "procedural" law. So if a group such as a ____-rights group voted to illegally picket or do something else illegal to draw attention to their cause, a board member who abstained or voted no and could prove it via minutes might avoid legal trouble.

There may even be reasons to record *why* a person voted a certain way. If a person has a constituency and voted how they instructed him to vote, even though it was not his personal preference, he may have others who also review the minutes and he wants them to know that he voted the way he did only because he was so instructed.

If the member requests this at the time of the voting, and a majority grants the request, the secretary should include the extra information (how he voted, and/or why he voted that way) in the draft minutes, and if instead he makes the request only when the minutes are pending for adoption, the majority again decides the matter. It is a proposed amendment to the pending minutes, and an amendment needs only a majority vote. Granted waiting till the minutes are pending to raise the request may increase the assembly's reluctance to grant the request, for some may not know if he voted as he said he did. But a majority vote still decides.

[Gary Novosielski]

RONR p. 453 says "The name of the seconder of a motion should not be entered in the minutes unless ordered by the assembly." Thus it seems to me that in general something that "should not be entered in the minutes" can be "ordered by the assembly" to be entered. I assume that if it took a two-thirds vote it would have said so.

The specific does not imply the general, it overrules it. If certain specific things (like seconds) are authorized, then other things of the same class (similar extraneous nonsense) are presumed to be prohibited, unless rules exist permitting them too. If seconds were the only thing mentioned, the implication would not be that anything at all can be entered into the minutes by a majority vote, but rather that seconds are the only thing that may be so entered.

A single member couldn't cause extras to be entered in the minutes, such as how they voted on a rising vote, but something required by rule (such as the counts for a ballot vote) could be demanded by a single member and suppressed by a two-thirds vote suspending the rules (similar to a call for orders of the day). If the majority adopting the minutes or approving a correction or amendment want something extra in the minutes, it is their choice.

Example: I chair a board that once had a member on it that was an employee of the local power company, and when we voted on items such as an easement for the power company he would abstain by choice, and ask that the minutes reflect that fact. Our state law says that if a director is present, he is "presumed to have assented to the action" unless his "dissent or abstention shall be entered in the minutes" or he delivers his dissent/abstention to the secretary immediately after the meeting.

State law supersedes what is in RONR. It does not imply that RONR is incorrect, it just supersedes it.

There are other, similar, situations that might well require notations in the minutes that relate to state laws. Under some Sunshine Laws, for example, public bodies are restricted to a small list of topics for which they may go into executive session. If discussion should stray away from one of those areas during executive session, a member should raise a point of order in order to have his objection recorded in the minutes, and if overruled, should appeal. Those voting not to sustain the decision of the chair would not be culpable in later disciplinary action, if any, according to subsequent case law. But here again, while this supersedes any rules in RONR it does not mean RONR is wrong, it's just that some situations aren't covered.

In the real world, for which RONR was written, there are times when recording how a person votes is important. If a board member is sued because he was "presumed" to have approved something, or voted off the board, or somehow "punished" by his boss, it would be well to have it documented in the minutes how he voted against it or abstained.

Recall that with RONR 10th edition, a motion isn't out of order simply for proposing something illegal in general, it is only out of order if it conflicts with "procedural" law. So if a group such as a ____-rights group voted to illegally picket or do something else illegal to draw attention to their cause, a board member who abstained or voted no and could prove it via minutes might avoid legal trouble.

Easily solved with a roll-call vote. Beyond that, if the person claims to have voted no, the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to prove otherwise. With the exception of a roll-call vote, that's going to be quite difficult to prove. And again, nothing to do with RONR.

There may even be reasons to record *why* a person voted a certain way. If a person has a constituency and voted how they instructed him to vote, even though it was not his personal preference, he may have others who also review the minutes and he wants them to know that he voted the way he did only because he was so instructed.

And that is why roll-call votes are available. And in many assemblies by a much lower than majority vote. That is the proper motion to use to have votes recorded. If the threshold for a roll-call is not met, then the assembly has decided not to allow a roll-call vote. It has voted against having the votes recorded. Those voting no may have valid reasons, or perhaps nefarious ones, for not wanting their colleague to be able to demonstrate to his constituency how he voted.

[J. J.]

And that is why roll-call votes are available. And in many assemblies by a much lower than majority vote. That is the proper motion to use to have votes recorded. If the threshold for a roll-call is not met, then the assembly has decided not to allow a roll-call vote. It has voted against having the votes recorded. Those voting no may have valid reasons, or perhaps nefarious ones, for not wanting their colleague to be able to demonstrate to his constituency how he voted.

However the provisions of p. 572 #6 would still apply. If the assembly is just choosing not to go to the full extent it could go to in recording the votes.

[Josh Martin]

The specific does not imply the general, it overrules it. If certain specific things (like seconds) are authorized, then other things of the same class (similar extraneous nonsense) are presumed to be prohibited, unless rules exist permitting them too. If seconds were the only thing mentioned, the implication would not be that anything at all can be entered into the minutes by a majority vote, but rather that seconds are the only thing that may be so entered.

So your position is that entering anything into the minutes beyond what is mentioned in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 451-454 requires a 2/3 vote, unless the organization's rules suggest otherwise or there is a reason to include the information under applicable law?

[Rob Elsman]

So your position is that entering anything into the minutes beyond what is mentioned in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 451-454 requires a 2/3 vote, unless the organization's rules suggest otherwise or there is a reason to include the information under applicable law?

I don't understand why you cast your question like this. Isn't it clear to all that the suspension of suspendable rules of order requires a two-thirds vote? What difference does it make whether the rules in question are, or are not, on pp. 451-454?

[J. J.]

I don't understand why you cast your question like this. Isn't it clear to all that the suspension of suspendable rules of order requires a two-thirds vote? What difference does it make whether the rules in question are, or are not, on pp. 451-454?

Well, in this case, because those pages not that things can be added to the minutes by majority vote and that a method of voting, that includes recording how each member votes, can be established by majority vote.

[Josh Martin]

I don't understand why you cast your question like this. Isn't it clear to all that the suspension of suspendable rules of order requires a two-thirds vote? What difference does it make whether the rules in question are, or are not, on pp. 451-454?

Well, and that brings us back to the central debate here. I do not agree that RONR necessarily prohibits adding information to the minutes beyond what is required in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 451-454.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, and that brings us back to the central debate here. I do not agree that RONR necessarily prohibits adding information to the minutes beyond what is required in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 451-454.

I'm not saying that either.

But when it comes to recording how people voted, I believe that is restricted to cases where a roll call vote was ordered, because that is the particular method specified for precisely that purpose. Those who choose to suspend that rule require a 2/3 vote to do so.

And just as a person is prohibited from explaining the reasons for his vote at the time that he casts it, because doing so amounts to debate, so entering the reasons for his vote into the minutes amounts to entering debate into the minutes.

Debate is not permitted in the minutes, therefore any decision to do so requires a suspension of the rules, and a 2/3 vote.

...IMHO, of course.

[hmtcastle]

Debate is not permitted in the minutes . . .

Please cite the rule that supports this statement.

[Weldon Merritt]

Please cite the rule that supports this statement.

"The minutes]should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." P. 451, ll. 26-28. Granted, the rule says "should" and "mainly," so I am not sure how strict the rule really is. I am on the fence on this one, but leaning toward the "2/3 vote" side.

[hmtcastle]

Granted, the rule says "should" and "mainly," so I am not sure how strict the rule really is.

Perhaps it's not a rule at all.